Cutera, Inc. v. Lutronic Aesthetics, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Cutera, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Plaintiff, ORDER Vv. Lutronic Aesthetics, Inc. 1S Defendant. 16 Plaintiff Cutera, Inc. requests reconsideration of the denial of its motion to amend the complaint to add Lutronic Corporation as a defendant. Mot., ECF No. 82. The plaintiff argues 19 the court erred by relying on Rule 16(b) instead of Rule 15 to deny the motion. Jd. at 3.! 20 Lutronic opposes the motion, see Opp’n, ECF No. 84, and Cutera replied, see Reply, ECF No. 86. The court submitted the motion without oral argument. Min. Order (Oct. 10, 2022), ECF No. 90. Rule 54(b) authorizes a district court to revise an interlocutory order. See City of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 2001). An order denying a motion to amend a complaint is interlocutory in nature, thus Rule 54(b) applies. See Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Sw. Marine,…